35Chapter
III.—The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop
of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople.

“To his most revered and likeminded brother Alexander,
Alexander sendeth greeting in the Lord.

“Impelled by avarice and
ambition, evil-minded persons have ever plotted against the wellbeing
of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the
religion of the Church; and, being maddened by the devil, who works in
them, they start aside from all piety according to their own pleasure,
and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God. Suffering as I
do from them myself, I deem it necessary to inform your piety, that you
may be on your guard against them, lest they or any of their party
should presume to enter your diocese (for these cheats are skilful in
deception), or should circulate false and specious letters, calculated
to delude one who has devoted himself to the simple and undefiled
faith.

“Arius and Achillas have
lately formed a conspiracy, and, emulating the ambition of Colluthus,
have gone far beyond him255255 Alexander’s words seem to imply that Colluthus began his
schismatical proceedings in assuming to exercise episcopal functions
before the separation of Arius from the Church, and that one cause of
his wrong action was impatience at the mild course at first adopted by
Alexander towards Arius. The Council of Alexandria held in a.d. 324 under Hosius, decided that he was only a
Presbyter.. He indeed sought to
find a pretext for his own pernicious line of action in the charges he
brought against them. But they, beholding his making a trade of Christ
for lucre256256χριοστεμπορία. The word χριστέμπορος
is applied in the “Didache” to lazy
consumers of alms. Cf. Ps. Ignat. ad Trall.: οὐ
χριστιανοὶ
ἀλλὰ
χριστέμποροι, Ps. Ignat. ad Mag. ix., and Bp. Lightfoot’s
note., refused to remain any longer in
subjection to the Church; but built for themselves caves, like robbers,
and now constantly assemble in them, and day and night ply slanders
there against Christ and against us. They revile every godly
apostolical doctrine, and in Jewish fashion have organized a gang to
fight against Christ, denying His divinity, and declaring Him to be on
a level with other men. They pick out every passage which refers to the
dispensation of salvation, and to His humiliation for our sake; they
endeavour to collect from them their own impious assertion, while they
evade all those which declare His eternal divinity, and the unceasing257257 Readings vary between ἄλεκτος =
indescribable, and ἄληκτος =
ceaseless. Cf. ᾽Αληκτώ, the Fury. glory which He possesses with the Father.
They maintain the ungodly doctrine entertained by the Greeks and the
Jews concerning Jesus Christ; and thus, by every means in their power,
hunt for their applause. Everything which outsiders ridicule in us they
officiously practise. They daily excite persecutions and seditions
against us. On the one hand they bring accusations against us before
the courts, suborning as witnesses certain unprincipled women whom they
have seduced into error. On the other they dishonour Christianity by
permitting their young women to ramble about the streets. Nay, they
have had the audacity to rend the seamless garment of Christ, which the
soldiers dared not divide.

“When these actions, in
keeping with their course of life, and the impious enterprise which had
been long concealed, became tardily known to us, we unanimously ejected
them from the Church which worships the divinity of Christ. They then
ran hither and thither to form cabals against us, even addressing
themselves to our fellow-ministers who were of one mind with us, under
the pretence of seeking peace and unity with them, but in truth
endeavouring by means of fair words, to sweep some among them away into
their own disease. They ask them to write a wordy letter, and then read
the contents to those whom they have deceived, in order that they may
not retract, but be confirmed in their impiety, by finding that bishops
agree with and support their views. They make no acknowledgment of the
evil doctrines and practices for which they have been expelled by us,
but they either impart them without comment, or carry on the deception
by fallacies and forgeries. Thus concealing their destructive doctrine
by persuasive and meanly truckling language, they catch the unwary, and
lose no opportunity of calumniating our religion. Hence it arises that
several have been led to sign their letter, and to receive them into
communion, a proceeding on the part of our fellow-ministers which I
consider highly reprehensible; for they thus not only disobey the
apostolical rule, but even help to inflame their diabolical action
against Christ. It is on this account, beloved brethren, that without
delay I have stirred myself up to inform you of the unbelief of certain
persons who say that “There was a time when the Son of God was
not258258῟Ην
ποτε ὅτε οὐκ
ἦν ὁ υἱ& 232·ς
τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ
Γέγονεν
ὕστερον ὁ
πρότερον μὴ
ὑπάρχων
τοιοῦτος
γενόμενος
ὅτε καί ποτε
γέγονεν οἷος
καὶ πᾶς
πέφυκεν
ἄνθρωπος;” and “He who previously had
no existence subsequently came into existence; and when at some time He
came into existence He became such as every other man is.” God,
they say, created all things out of that which was non-existent, and
they include in the number of creatures, both rational and irrational,
even the Son of God. Consistently with this doctrine they, as a
necessary consequence, affirm that He 36is by nature liable to change,
and capable both of virtue and of vice, and thus, by their hypothesis
of his having been created out of that which was non-existent, they
overthrow the testimony of the Divine Scriptures, which declare the
immutability of the Word and the Divinity of the Wisdom of the Word,
which Word and Wisdom is Christ. ‘We are also able,’ say
these accursed wretches, ‘to become like Him, the sons of God;
for it is written,—I have nourished and brought up
children259259Isai. i. 2 ὑιοὺς
ἐγέννησα καὶ
ὕψωσα, as in Sept.
Vulg., filios enutrivi et exaltavi. Revd., marg., “made
great and exalted.”.’ When the continuation of this
text is brought before them, which is, ‘and they have rebelled
against Me,’ and it is objected that these words are
inconsistent with the Saviour’s nature, which is immutable, they
throw aside all reverence, and affirm that God foreknew and foresaw
that His Son would not rebel against Him, and that He therefore chose
Him in preference to all others. They likewise assert that He was not
chosen because He had by nature any thing superior to the other sons of
God; for no man, say they, is son of God by nature, nor has any
peculiar relation to Him. He was chosen, they allege, because, though
mutable by nature, His painstaking character suffered no deterioration.
As though, forsooth, even if a Paul and a Peter made like endeavours,
their sonship would in no respects differ from His.

“To establish this insane
doctrine they insult the Scriptures, and bring forward what is said in
the Psalms of Christ, ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated
iniquity, therefore thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows260260Ps. xlv. 7, as in Sept.,
except that ἀδικίαν is substituted for ἀνομίαν.’ Now that the
Son of God was not created out of the non-existent261261Οὔτε ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων
γεγένηται, and that there never was a time in which
He was not, is expressly taught by John the Evangelist, who speaks of
Him as ‘the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the
Father262262John i. 18.’ This divine teacher desired
to show that the Father and the Son are inseparable; and, therefore, he
said, ‘that the Son is in the bosom of the Father.’
Moreover, the same John affirms that the Word of God is not classed
among things created out of the non-existent, for, he says that
‘all things were made by Him263263John i. 3,’ and he also declares His
individual personality264264ὑπόστασιν in the following
words: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.…All things were made by Him, and
without Him was not any thing made that was made265265John i. 1, 3.’ If, then, all things were made by
Him, how is it that He who thus bestowed existence on all, could at any
period have had no existence himself? The Word, the creating power, can
in no way be defined as of the same nature as the things created, if
indeed He was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and
were called by Him out of the non-existent into being. ‘That
which is266266τὸ ὄν, the
self-existent of philosophy.’ must be of an opposite
nature to, and essentially different from, things created out of the
non-existent. This shows, likewise, that there is no separation between
the Father and the Son, and that the idea of separation cannot even be
conceived by the mind; while the fact that the world was created out of
the non-existent involves a later and fresh genesis of its essential
nature267267 The
history of the word ὑπόστασις is of crucial value in the study of the Arian controversy.
Its various usages may be classified as (i) Classical; (ii)
Scriptural; (iii) Ecclesiastical. The correlative
substantive of the verb ὑφίστημι, I make to stand under, [from ὑπό
= sub. under, and ἵστημι, [STA]; it
means primarily a standing under. Hence, materially, it means in
(i) Classical Greek, sediment, prop. foundation: substances as opposed
to their reflexions, substantial nature, as of timber [Theoph. C. P. 5.
16. 4]. So naturally grew the signification of ground of hope, actual
existence; and, in the later philosophy, it had come to be employed
instead of οὐσία for the
noetic substratum “underlying” the phænomena. (ii)
Scriptural. In the N.T. it is found five times, twice in 2 Cor. and
thrice in Heb. (α) 2 Cor. ix. 4, and (β) xi. 17.
“Confidence” of boasting. (γ) Heb. i. 3, ὁ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς
ὑποστάσεως, A.V. the express image of His “person.” R.V.,
the very image of His “substance.” (δ) Heb. iii. 14,
“Confidence”. (ε) Heb. xi. 1, A.V.
“substance” of things hoped for. R.V. Assurance of things
hoped for. (iii) Ecclesiastical. The earlier ecclesiastical use, like
the later philosophical, identified it with οὐσία,
and so the Nicene Confession anathematized those who maintained the Son
to be of a different substance or essence from the Father (ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας). In the
version of Hilary of Poictiers (de Synodis, §84; Op. ii.
510) οὐσία is
translated by “substantia,” the etymological equivalent
of ὑπόστασις, except in the phrase quoted, when “substantia aut
essentia” represents οὐσία by its
own etymological equivalent “essentia.” Thus in a.d. 325 to have contended for τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
would have been heretical. But as the subtilty of
controversy required greater nicety of phrase, it was laid down (Basil
the Great, Ep. 38) that while οὐσία is an
universal denoting that which is common to the individuals of a
species, ὑπόστασις makes an individual that which it is, and constitutes
personal existence. Hence μία
ὑπόστασις became Sabellian, and τρεῖς
οὐσίαι Arian,
while τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
was orthodox. cf Theod. Dial. i. 7. Eranistes loq.
“Is there any distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις?” Orthodoxus. “In
extra-Christian philosophy there is not; for οὐσία signifies τὸ
ὄν, that which is, and ὑπόστασις that which subsists. But according to the doctrine of the
Fathers there is the same difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις as between the common and the particular; the race, and the
species or individual.”…“The Divine οὐσία (substance) means the Holy Trinity; but the ὑπόστασις indicates any πρόσωπον (person) as of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Ghost.
For we who follow the definitions of the Fathers assert ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον and ἰδιότης (substantial nature, person, or individuality) to mean the
same thing.” Vide also Newman’s Arians of the Fourth
Century, Appendix, Note iv. fourth Edition., all things having been endowed with such
an origin of existence by the Father through the Son. John, the most
pious apostle, perceiving that the word ‘was’ applied to
the Word of God268268 “In the beginning was the word.” John i.
1 was far beyond
and above the intelligence of created beings, did not presume to speak
of His generation or creation, nor yet dared to name the Maker and the
creature in equivalent syllables. Not that the Son of God is
unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten; but that the ineffable
personality of the only-begotten God 37is beyond the keenest
conception of the evangelists and perhaps even of angels. Therefore, I
do not think men ought to be considered pious who presume to
investigate this subject, in disobedience to the injunction,
‘Seek not what is too difficult for thee, neither enquire into
what is too high for thee269269Ecclus. iii. 21.’ For if the
knowledge of many other things incomparably inferior is beyond the
capacity of the human mind, and cannot therefore be attained, as has
been said by Paul, ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared
for them that love Him2702701 Cor. ii. 9,’ and as God
also said to Abraham, that the stars could not be numbered by him271271Gen. xv. 5; and it is likewise said, ‘Who
shall number the grains of sand by the sea-shore, or the drops of
rain272272Ecclus. i. 2?’ how then can any one but a
madman presume to enquire into the nature of the Word of God? It is
said by the Spirit of prophecy, ‘Who shall declare His
generation273273Isai. liii. 8?’ And, therefore, our
Saviour in His kindness to those men who were the pillars of the whole
world, desiring to relieve them of the burden of striving after this
knowledge, told them that it was beyond their natural comprehension,
and that the Father alone could discern this most divine mystery;
‘No man,’ said He, ‘knoweth the Son but the
Father, and no man knoweth the Father save the Son274274Matt. xi. 27.’ It was, I think, concerning this
same subject that the Father said, ‘My secret is for Me and for
Mine275275Is. xxiv. 16: “My
leanness, my leanness, woe unto me.” A.V. “Secretum meum
mihi.” Vulg..’

“But the insane folly of
imagining that the Son of God came into being out of that which had no
being, and that His sending forth took place in time, is plain from the
words ‘which had no being,’ although the foolish are
incapable of perceiving the folly of their own utterances. For the
phrase ‘He was not’ must either have reference to time, or
to some interval in the ages. If then it be true that all things were
made by Him, it is evident that every age, time, all intervals of time,
and that ‘when’ in which ‘was not’ has its
place, were made by Him. And is it not absurd to say that there was a
time when He who created all time, and ages, and seasons, with which
the ‘was not’ is confused, was not? For it would be the
height of ignorance, and contrary indeed to all reason, to affirm that
the cause of any created thing can be posterior to that caused by it.
The interval during which they say the Son was still unbegotten of the
Father was, according to their opinion, prior to the wisdom of God, by
whom all things were created. They thus contradict the Scripture which
declares Him to be ‘the firstborn of every creature276276Col. i. 15.’ In consonance with this doctrine,
Paul with his usual mighty voice cries concerning Him; ‘whom
He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the
worlds277277Heb. i. 2. Vide Alford.
proleg. to Ep. to Heb., “Nowhere except in the Alexandrian Church
does there seem to have existed any idea that the Epistle was St.
Paul’s.” “At Alexandria the conventional habit of
quoting the Epistle as St. Paul’s gradually prevailed over
critical suspicion and early tradition.” ’ ‘For by
Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him:
and He is before all things278278Col. i. 16,
17 ’
Since the hypothesis implied in the phrase ‘out of the
non-existent’ is manifestly impious, it follows that the Father
is always Father. And He is Father from the continual presence of the
Son, on account of whom He is called279279χρηματίζω
= (i) to have dealings with; (ii) to deal with an
oracle or divine power; (iii) to get a name for dealing, and so to
be called. Cf. Matt. ii. 12; Acts xi.
26 Father. And
the Son being ever present with Him, the Father is ever perfect,
wanting in no good thing, for He did not beget His only Son in time, or
in any interval of time, nor out of that which had no previous
existence.

“Is it not then impious to
say that there was a time when the wisdom of God was not? Who saith,
‘I was by Him as one brought up with Him: I was daily His
delight280280Prov. viii.
30?’ Or that once the power of
God was not, or His Word, or anything else by which the Son is known,
or the Father designated, defective? To assert that the brightness of
the Father’s glory ‘once did not exist,’ destroys
also the original light of which it is the brightness281281Heb. i. 3ὢν
ἀπαύγασμα
τῆς Δόξης καὶ
χαρακτὴρ τῆς
ὑποστάσεως
αὐτοῦ; and if there ever was a time in which
the image of God was not, it is plain that He Whose image He is, is not
always: nay, by the non-existence of the express image of God’s
Person, He also is taken away of whom this is ever the express image.
Hence it may be seen, that the Sonship of our Saviour has not even
anything in common with the sonship of men. For just as it has been
shown that the nature of His existence cannot be expressed by language,
and infinitely surpasses in excellence all things to which He has given
being, so His Sonship, naturally partaking in His paternal Divinity, is
unspeakably different from the sonship of those who, by His
appointment, have been adopted as sons. He is by nature immutable,
perfect, and all-sufficient, whereas men are liable to change, and need
His help. What further advance can be made by the 38wisdom of God282282 Contrast the advance of the manhood. Luke ii. 52,
“προύκοπτε,” the word used in the text.? What can the Very Truth, or God the
Word, add to itself? How can the Life or the True Light in any way be
bettered? And is it not still more contrary to nature to suppose that
wisdom can be susceptible of folly? that the power of God can be united
with weakness? that reason itself can be dimmed by unreasonableness, or
that darkness can be mixed with the true light? Does not the Apostle
say, ‘What communion hath light with darkness? and what
concord hath Christ with Belial2832832 Cor. vi. 14,
15?’
and Solomon, that ‘the way of a serpent upon a rock284284Prov. xxx. 19 ’ was
‘too wonderful’ for the human mind to comprehend,
which ‘rock,’ according to St. Paul, is Christ2852851 Cor. x. 4. Men and angels, however, who are His
creatures, have received His blessing, enabling them to exercise
themselves in virtue and in obedience to His commands, that thus they
may avoid sin. And it is on this account that our Lord being by nature
the Son of the Father, is worshipped by all; and they who have put off
the spirit of bondage, and by brave deeds and advance in virtue have
received the spirit of adoption through the kindness of Him Who is the
Son of God by nature, by adoption also become sons.

“His true, peculiar,
natural, and special Sonship was declared by Paul, who, speaking of
God, says, that ‘He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him
up for us286286Rom. viii. 32,’ who are not by nature His
sons. It was to distinguish Him from those who are not ‘His
own,’ that he called Him ‘His own son.’ It
is also written in the Gospel, ‘This is My beloved Son in whom
I am well pleased287287Matt. iii. 17;’ and in
the Psalms the Saviour says, ‘The Lord said unto Me, Thou art
My Son288288Ps. ii. 7.’ By proclaiming natural
sonship He shows that there are no other natural sons besides
Himself.

“And do not these words, I
begot thee ‘from the womb before the morning289289Ps. cx. 3. Sept.
ἐκ γαστρὸς
πρὸ
᾽Εωσφόρου
ἐγέννησά
σε,’ plainly show the natural sonship
of the paternal birth290290 The
readings vary between γεννήσεως, γενέσεως, and μαιεύσεως
(cf. Plat. Theæt. 150 B), which is adopted by
Valesius. of One whose lot it
is, not from diligence of conduct, or exercise in moral progress, but
by individuality of nature? Hence it ensues that the filiation of the
only-begotten Son of the Father is incapable of fall; while the
adoption of reasonable beings who are not His sons by nature, but
merely on account of fitness of character, and by the bounty of God,
may fall away, as it is written in the word, ‘The sons of God
saw the daughters of men, and took them as wives,’ and so
forth291291Gen. vi. 2. And God, speaking by Isaiah, said,
‘I have nourished and brought up children, and they have
rebelled against Me292292Isa. i. 2.’

“I have many things to
say, beloved, but because I fear that I shall cause weariness by
further admonishing teachers who are of one mind with myself, I pass
them by. You, having been taught of God, are not ignorant that the
teaching at variance with the religion of the Church which has just
arisen, is the same as that propagated by Ebion293293 The
imaginary name for the founder of Ebionism, first started by
Tertullian. אֶבִיוֹן = poor.
and Artemas294294 Artemas, or Artemon, a philosophizing denier of Christ’s
divinity, excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus (a.d. 202–21)., and rivals that of Paul of
Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who was excommunicated by a council of all
the bishops. Lucianus295295 Lucianus, the presbyter of Antioch, who became the head of the
theological school of that city in which the leaders of the Arian
heresy were trained, after the deposition of Paulus refused to hold
communion with his three successors in the patriarchate, Domnus,
Timæus, and Cyril. During the episcopate of the last named he once
more entered into communion with the church of Antioch. On the
importance of Lucianus as founder of the Arians, Vide Newman’s
Arians of the Fourth Century, Chap. I. Sec. i. and cf. the
letter of Arius post. Chap. iv., his successor,
withdrew himself from communion with these bishops during a period of
many years.

“And now amongst us there
have sprung up, ‘out of the non-existent’ men who have
greedily sucked down the dregs of this impiety, offsets of the same
stock: I mean Arius and Achillas, and all their gang of rogues. Three
bishops296296 Eusebius of Cæsarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Paulinus of
Tyre. See Arius’ letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, ch.
iv. of Syria, appointed no one knows how, by
consenting to them, fire them to more fatal heat. I refer their
sentence to your decision. Retaining in their memory all that they can
collect concerning the suffering, humiliation, emptying of Himself297297κένωσις, cf. Phil. ii. 7, and so-called poverty, and everything of
which the Saviour for our sake accepted the acquired name, they bring
forward those passages to disprove His eternal existence and divinity,
while they forget all those which declare His glory and nobility and
abiding with the Father; as for instance, ‘I and My father are
one298298John x. 30.’ In these words the Lord does not
proclaim Himself to be the Father, neither does He represent two
natures as one; but that the essence of the Son of the Father preserves
accurately the likeness of the Father, His nature taking off the
impress of likeness to Him in all things, being the exact image of the
Father and the express stamp of the prototype. When, therefore, Philip,
desirous of seeing the Father, said to Him, ‘Lord, show us the
Father,’ the Lord with abundant plainness said to him,
‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father299299John xiv. 9,’ as though the Father 39were beheld in the
spotless and living mirror of His image. The same idea is conveyed in
the Psalms, where the saints say, ‘In Thy light we shall see
light300300Ps. xxxvi. 9.’ It is on this account that
‘he who honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father301301John v. 23.’ And rightly, for every impious word
which men dare to utter against the Son is spoken also against the
Father.

“After this no one can
wonder at the false calumnies which I am about to detail, my beloved
brethren, propagated by them against me, and against our most religious
people. They not only set their battle in array against the divinity of
Christ, but ungratefully insult us. They think it beneath them to be
compared with any of those of old time, nor do they endure to be put on
a par with the teachers we have been conversant with from childhood.
They will not admit that any of our fellow-ministers anywhere possess
even mediocrity of intelligence. They say that they themselves alone
are the wise and the poor, and discoverers of doctrines, and to them
alone have been revealed those truths which, say they, have never
entered the mind of any other individuals under the sun. O what wicked
arrogance! O what excessive folly! What false boasting, joined with
madness and Satanic pride, has hardened their impious hearts! They are
not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures,
nor yet does the unanimous piety of all our fellow-ministers concerning
Christ blunt their audacity. Even devils will not suffer impiety like
this; for even they refrain from speaking blasphemy against the Son of
God.

“These then are the
questions I have to raise, according to the ability I possess, with
those who from their rude resources throw dust on the Christ, and try
to slander our reverence for Him. These inventors of silly tales assert
that we, who reject their impious and unscriptural blasphemy concerning
the creation of Christ from the non-existent, teach that there are two
unbegotten Beings. For these ill-instructed men contend that one of
these alternatives must hold; either He must be believed to have come
out of the non-existent, or there are two unbegotten Beings. In their
ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast
must be the distance between the Father who is uncreate, and the
creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the
non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature of Him Who is the Word
of God, by Whom the Father created the universe out of the
non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was
begotten of the self-existent Father, as the Lord Himself testified
when He said, ‘Every one that loveth the Father, loveth also
the Son that is begotten of Him3023021 John v. 1.’

“We believe, as is taught
by the apostolical Church, in an only unbegotten Father, Who of His
being hath no cause, immutable and invariable, and Who subsists always
in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor of
diminution; Who gave the law, and the prophets, and the gospel; of
patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints, Lord: and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is
not, but of the Father, Who is; yet not after the manner of material
bodies, by severance or emanation, as Sabellius303303 Condemned a.d. 261 by Council held at
Alexandria.
and Valentinus304304 Taught in Rome in a.d. 140, and died in
Cyprus in a.d. 160. taught; but in an inexpressible and
inexplicable manner, according to the saying which we quoted above,
‘Who shall declare His generation305305Isa. liii. 8?’ since no mortal intellect can
comprehend the nature of His Person, as the Father Himself cannot be
comprehended, because the nature of reasonable beings is unable to
grasp the manner in which He was begotten of the Father306306ἡ πατρικὴ
θεογονία.

“But those who are led by
the Spirit of truth have no need to learn these things of me, for the
words long since spoken by the Saviour yet sound in our ears,
‘No one knoweth who the Father is but the Son, and no one
knoweth who the Son is but the Father307307Matt. xi. 27: observe the
slight variation..’ We have learnt that the Son is
immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the
Father, lacking only His “unbegotten.” He is the exact and
precisely similar image of His Father. For it is clear that the image
fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the
Lord taught us when He said, ‘My Father is greater than
I308308John xiv. 28.’ And in accordance with this we
believe that the Son always existed of the Father; for he is the
brightness of His glory, and the express image of His
Father’s Person309309Heb. i. 3.” But let no
one be led by the word ‘always’ to imagine that the
Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have their intellects
blinded: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that
before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.

“The mind of man could not
possibly invent a term expressive of what is meant by being unbegotten.
I believe that you are of this opinion; and, indeed, I feel confident
in your orthodox view that none of these terms in any way signify the
unbegotten. For all the terms 40appear to signify merely the
extension of time, and are not adequate to express the divinity and, as
it were, the primæval being of the only-begotten Son. They were
used by the holy men who earnestly endeavoured to clear up the mystery,
and who asked pardon from those who heard them, with a reasonable
excuse for their failure, by saying ‘as far as our comprehension
has reached.’ But if those who allege that what was
‘known in part’ has been ‘done away3103101 Cor. xiii.
10’ for them, expect from human lips
anything beyond human powers, it is plain that the terms
‘was,’ and ‘ever,’ and ‘before all
ages,’ fall far short of this expectation. But whatever they may
mean, it is not the same as ‘the unbegotten.’ Therefore His
own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten
One, no one being called the cause of His existence: to the Son
likewise must be given the honour which befits Him, there being to Him
a generation from the Father which has no beginning; we must render Him
worship, as we have already said, only piously and religiously
ascribing to Him the ‘was’ and the ‘ever,’ and
the ‘before all ages;’ not however rejecting His divinity,
but ascribing to Him a perfect likeness in all things to His Father,
while at the same time we ascribe to the Father alone His own proper
glory of ‘the unbegotten,’ even as the Saviour Himself
says, ‘My Father is greater than I311311John xiv. 28.’

“And in addition to this
pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the
Sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, who moved the saints of the
Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New.
We believe in one only Catholic Church, the apostolical, which cannot
be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight
against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of
the heterodox; for we are emboldened by the words of its Master,
‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world312312John xvi. 33.’ After this, we receive the
doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our
Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in
semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God313313ἐκ
τῆς Θεοτόκου
Μαρίας;
in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of
sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no
diminution of His Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into
heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on
high.

“In this epistle I have
only mentioned these things in part, deeming it, as I have said,
wearisome to dwell minutely on each article, since they are well known
to your pious diligence. These things we teach, these things we preach;
these are the dogmas of the apostolic Church, for which we are ready to
die, caring little for those who would force us to forswear them; for
we will never relinquish our hope in them, though they should try to
compel us by tortures.

“Arius and Achillas,
together with their fellow foes, have been expelled from the Church,
because they have become aliens from our pious doctrine: according to
the blessed Paul, who said, ‘If any of you preach any other
gospel than that which you have received, let him be accursed, even
though he should pretend to be an angel from heaven314314Gal. i. 9, and ‘But if any man teach
otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness,
he is proud, knowing nothing3153151 Tim. vi. 3,
4,’ and so
forth. Since, then, they have been condemned by the brotherhood, let
none of you receive them, nor attend to what they say or write. They
are deceivers, and propagate lies, and they never adhere to the truth.
They go about to different cities with no other intent than to deliver
letters under the pretext of friendship and in the name of peace, and
by hypocrisy and flattery to obtain other letters in return, in order
to deceive a few ‘silly women who are laden with sins3163162 Tim. iii. 6.’ I beseech you, beloved brethren,
to avoid those who have thus dared to act against Christ, who have
publicly held up the Christian religion to ridicule, and have eagerly
sought to make a display before judicial tribunals, who have
endeavoured to excite a persecution against us at a period of the most
entire peace, and who have enervated the unspeakable mystery of the
generation of Christ. Unite unanimously in opposition to them, as some
of our fellow-ministers have already done, who, being filled with
indignation, wrote to me against them, and signed our formulary317317Τόμος. (i)
a cut or slice; (ii) a portion of a roll, volume, or
“tome.”.

“I have sent you these
letters by my son Apion, the deacon; being those of (the ministers in)
all Egypt and the Thebaid, also of those of Libya, and the Pentapolis,
of Syria, Lycia, Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and in the other
adjoining countries. Whose example you likewise, I trust, will follow.
Many kindly attempts have been made by me to gain back those who have
been led astray, but no remedy has proved more efficacious in restoring
the laity who have been deceived by them and leading them to
repentance, than 41the manifestation of the union of our fellow-ministers.
Salute one another, with the brotherhood that is with you. I pray that
you may be strong in the Lord, my beloved, and that I may receive the
fruit of your love to Christ.

“The following are the
name of those who have been anathematized as heretics: among the
presbyters, Arius; among the deacons, Achillas, Euzoius, Aïthales,
Lucius, Sarmates, Julius, Menas, another Arius, and
Helladius.”

Alexander wrote in the same
strain to Philogonius318318 Vide supra., bishop of
Antioch, to Eustathius319319 Bp.
first Berœa in Syria and then of Antioch, c. 324–331.
Berœa, the Helbon of Ezekiel (xxvii. 18) is now Aleppo or
Haleb., who then ruled
the church of the Berœans, and to all those who defended the
doctrines of the Apostles. But Arius could not endure to keep quiet,
but wrote to all those whom he believed to agree with him in opinion.
His letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, is a clear proof that the
divine Alexander wrote nothing that was false concerning him. I shall
here insert his letter, in order that the names of those who were
implicated in his impiety may become generally known.

255 Alexander’s words seem to imply that Colluthus began his
schismatical proceedings in assuming to exercise episcopal functions
before the separation of Arius from the Church, and that one cause of
his wrong action was impatience at the mild course at first adopted by
Alexander towards Arius. The Council of Alexandria held in a.d. 324 under Hosius, decided that he was only a
Presbyter.

267 The
history of the word ὑπόστασις is of crucial value in the study of the Arian controversy.
Its various usages may be classified as (i) Classical; (ii)
Scriptural; (iii) Ecclesiastical. The correlative
substantive of the verb ὑφίστημι, I make to stand under, [from ὑπό
= sub. under, and ἵστημι, [STA]; it
means primarily a standing under. Hence, materially, it means in
(i) Classical Greek, sediment, prop. foundation: substances as opposed
to their reflexions, substantial nature, as of timber [Theoph. C. P. 5.
16. 4]. So naturally grew the signification of ground of hope, actual
existence; and, in the later philosophy, it had come to be employed
instead of οὐσία for the
noetic substratum “underlying” the phænomena. (ii)
Scriptural. In the N.T. it is found five times, twice in 2 Cor. and
thrice in Heb. (α) 2 Cor. ix. 4, and (β) xi. 17.
“Confidence” of boasting. (γ) Heb. i. 3, ὁ χαρακτὴρ
τῆς
ὑποστάσεως, A.V. the express image of His “person.” R.V.,
the very image of His “substance.” (δ) Heb. iii. 14,
“Confidence”. (ε) Heb. xi. 1, A.V.
“substance” of things hoped for. R.V. Assurance of things
hoped for. (iii) Ecclesiastical. The earlier ecclesiastical use, like
the later philosophical, identified it with οὐσία,
and so the Nicene Confession anathematized those who maintained the Son
to be of a different substance or essence from the Father (ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας). In the
version of Hilary of Poictiers (de Synodis, §84; Op. ii.
510) οὐσία is
translated by “substantia,” the etymological equivalent
of ὑπόστασις, except in the phrase quoted, when “substantia aut
essentia” represents οὐσία by its
own etymological equivalent “essentia.” Thus in a.d. 325 to have contended for τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
would have been heretical. But as the subtilty of
controversy required greater nicety of phrase, it was laid down (Basil
the Great, Ep. 38) that while οὐσία is an
universal denoting that which is common to the individuals of a
species, ὑπόστασις makes an individual that which it is, and constitutes
personal existence. Hence μία
ὑπόστασις became Sabellian, and τρεῖς
οὐσίαι Arian,
while τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις
was orthodox. cf Theod. Dial. i. 7. Eranistes loq.
“Is there any distinction between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις?” Orthodoxus. “In
extra-Christian philosophy there is not; for οὐσία signifies τὸ
ὄν, that which is, and ὑπόστασις that which subsists. But according to the doctrine of the
Fathers there is the same difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις as between the common and the particular; the race, and the
species or individual.”…“The Divine οὐσία (substance) means the Holy Trinity; but the ὑπόστασις indicates any πρόσωπον (person) as of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Ghost.
For we who follow the definitions of the Fathers assert ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον and ἰδιότης (substantial nature, person, or individuality) to mean the
same thing.” Vide also Newman’s Arians of the Fourth
Century, Appendix, Note iv. fourth Edition.

277Heb. i. 2. Vide Alford.
proleg. to Ep. to Heb., “Nowhere except in the Alexandrian Church
does there seem to have existed any idea that the Epistle was St.
Paul’s.” “At Alexandria the conventional habit of
quoting the Epistle as St. Paul’s gradually prevailed over
critical suspicion and early tradition.”

295 Lucianus, the presbyter of Antioch, who became the head of the
theological school of that city in which the leaders of the Arian
heresy were trained, after the deposition of Paulus refused to hold
communion with his three successors in the patriarchate, Domnus,
Timæus, and Cyril. During the episcopate of the last named he once
more entered into communion with the church of Antioch. On the
importance of Lucianus as founder of the Arians, Vide Newman’s
Arians of the Fourth Century, Chap. I. Sec. i. and cf. the
letter of Arius post. Chap. iv.

296 Eusebius of Cæsarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Paulinus of
Tyre. See Arius’ letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, ch.
iv.